Cinema is not entertainment. cinema is serious art

So John Cassavetes films are not art?

Video games will never be truly art on the same level because of the interactive part specifically.
Interaction diminishes the artistic value immensely because with film, or a book, or a painting you get an exact fixed unchangeable artistic expression delivered to you just like it is intended, while with games whatever other interactive element is introduced only diminishes the original artistic intention and focuses on the viewer/player. Like said, the more a game is considered "art" it has less interactivity in it.

Video games will forever remain merely an entertainment gimmick and nothing more

>the more a game is considered "art" it has less interactivity in it.
Enlightened opinion

Attached: enlightenment-KRCK4H.jpg (1300x739, 93K)

>terrible framerate, terrible character models, terrible repetitive gameplay
Yeah, sure has. What did it try to communicate by the way? Did it convince you, you're a fuckerturd getting your dopamine highs from video games, instead of achieving something genuine?

based Yea Forums dabs on Yea Forums at every moment

The fact that videogames have more "genres" and ways to make them make them have more potential than movies. You can make a very linear and cinematic game with no choices and in which "interactivity" only gives more immersion or you can make an rpg in which you can choose what story does your character plays in the bigger plot. Not to talk about how videogames can make you experience architecture and even geography in ways no other medium can.

>tfw user is visually illiterate

Attached: 0D8643EE-B1FB-476C-A260-E55BBD57C50A.jpg (750x376, 75K)

No it isn't faggot, and thats why it is already dying after just a little century of existence (video games make more money now). It started as some attraction in an amusement park and that's what it has mostly always been. "Auteur" cinema is a meme from the marxist bourgeois of the nouvelle vague.

>"achieving something genuine"
Oh, yes, watching Kurosawa, Fellini and Tarkovsky really made me achieve something genuine instead, right?

>and in which "interactivity" only gives more immersion
No it doesn’t, it only focuses on the player.

When Black Mirror added the interactive part it didn't become more "immersive" or more "art", the literal opposite happened it became a literal game instead of an artistic expression.

Cinema is dying, capeshit being the last of it, and there will only be streaming pile of adaptation or recycled shit because it has offered all it had to give.

>When Black Mirror
OH NO NO NO NO

>It started as some attraction in an amusement park and that's what it has mostly always been.
lmao how much of a zoomer are you

Going to the cinema was on par with going to a play or an Opera back in the day, no children no crusty filthy NEETs etc

Not even a fan of those but there's at least some value in there and their movies don't take you 15 to 30 hours to finish each. Bloodborne lacks storytelling. There is some, but barely anything substantial. It's aesthetically very pleasing (if you don't risk a closer look) but other than that it doesn't have much going for. Gameplay is repetitive as hell and frustrates on purpose, only so you get a high after struggling through. It's like sweets, but one with a bitter shell.

Film is unironically the highest form of art.
It contains all the other art forms in all the filmmaking elements, from fashion, architecture, design to music, photography, the writing and performances.
With film, you can express your idea in just one single frame through framing and composition, the performance, production design, sound
etc, while with literature you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the reader to grasp what's happening. Reading words linearly is not ideal, film is just much more efficient. Also with film you get an exact fixed artistic expression that can’t be changed, while with literature it's entirely different with every single person because they all self impose their own pacing while reading, some read a book in a day some in a month, with films you get the exact experience the artist intended. Not to mention the fact that readers rarely read the direct expression of the artist, more than often just a translated reinterpretation.

Now that doesn't mean everyone uses the medium of film to it's maximum potential ofcourse, but it has a far greater potential than any other art form out there.

>but m-muh video games!

Until Dawn did it right. Every interaction you have with the characters was about life or death. It is more memorable than any slasher film in the last 20 years even when the plot was as bad as all of them.

lol not at all, it's always been a fucking joke, then ((hollywood)) made it into a bigger but more lucrative joke

Attached: cinema-2016062701483859.gif.jpg (815x544, 92K)

Serious art is entertainment.

Attached: superbrain.png (475x356, 452K)

>Film is unironically the highest form of art
>nothing come close to the works of Cervantes, Shakespeare, Mahler, Wagner, etc...

Attached: 1518975210238.jpg (369x468, 42K)

This. Cinema started being written by women because it had no merit or acceptance as art. That's why hollywood adopted the romantic style (emotions over intellect).

Film is also an extremely young art form, especially when compared to literature, so the potential is immense.
And I would gladly put the work of Tarkovsky with any of the best poets you can think of.

Kurosawa is genuinely better than fucking Bloodborne though. Not saying video games aren’t an artform, they hire artists and game designers. But you’re going by artistic merit. Bloodborne and souls games are mainly fun entertainment, hacking things away. Yes there are some elements about muh lovecraft muh cosmic horror bullshit, but you’re a fucking idiot if you think most people are playing it for ‘artistic merit’ or are thinking about the deeper meaning of hacking a blood starved beast for the tenth time. You mention Kurosawa like it’s some how below Bloodborne.

>(emotions over intellect).
This, thats why cinema could only be the """art""" of the decaying 20th century. Have some little sad music with some billionaire roastie crying on screen and voila: ART AND EMOTION. the """ art""" of the masse.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 19K)

Depends on the definition of art.
Art has, like, unironically, not a very agreed upon definition.

Kurosawa only literally did action and sentimentality shit. Michael Bay does the same but I guess he doesn't have the weeb quality for hipsters.

everybody knows what art is, nobody knows how to say it. art just works.

Bay makes entertainment on purpose. He doesn't care much about story. His prime focus is cinematography and FX work.

Oh yeah I forgot about all those kinos Michael Bay made where he did adaptations of Shakespeare and fucking Dostoyevsky. There was also that time Michael Bay did an adaption of an early 20th century Russian explorers memoirs and brought a whole film crew and team to the fucking wastes of Far East Russia

>making adaptations of actually good works validate your shitty movie
Pleb opinion

Everyone "knows" what art is, for them, but it's not the same thing. It does relate to a triggered feeling, but also to some of information received though a package of symbols and subtext. At the same time, however, in many cases there are things that trigger feelings o deliver packaged information yet people don't call them art. Art, in a sense, also requires a context of art, which is form of perspective. That is an element of art that is not in the object of art but in the perceive of it. For example, if you read any kind of text in poetry book you will read it with the expectation that it's going to be poetry, and will become able to interpret it as such even if you read it anywhere else you'd never consider it poetry.

You need to take in consideration aestethics too (the search for the sublime, beauty, grace, ugly, grotesque, etc.)

Even Yea Forums wouldn't say something so preposterous.

fpbp

>emotions vs intellect meme

Attached: BDDF86A7-BEA7-48D5-BF4F-9C1D862E3BCE.jpg (843x473, 57K)

That's in perspective. There's also ego and suffering, or in other words sacrifice ever since art became a high society concept. Like for example Leo shitting his pants in Revenant for an Oscar. He suffered and made a sacrifice to the gods, in which context the gods are the jury, or so they wish to see themselves. And therefore it's "art", but not because it's actually art, but because "you've been granted access to our your high society concept and given a badge of approval through your sacrifice to us (the gods)". It's a very complex social game. Art has become a tool of communication for completely non-artistic purposes in that world.

So that's "art" too. Humans tend to have one word for many different things, and lots of words for one single thing. It's quite ineffective.

>muh emotions
You're the memer, before fucking cinema only a few women cared about feeling "emotions" while reading fucking books by deluding themselves with identification (see the Bovary case).

You retards can't be serious. Are you actually arguing that art is more about "intellect" than the conveying of emotions? I mean I knew /pol/redditors were ignorant but this is advanced ignorance.

>muh pol
Not surprising a lefty would cry for eeemoootiooons, thats basically what your whole ideology is based on.
Again, your emotion meme literally comes from the last century, before hollywood bullshit no one talked about emotion in art, and before the 19th barely no one talked about "art" at all. You're the redditor, go back watching your Malicks tree shots, so EMOTIONAL.

youtube.com/watch?v=YurPCYy072U

obsessed

As someone who’s been in 2 Shakespeare plays, with the exception of a few works his shit hasn’t aged well if you really look at them. He just rambles on for pages without it playing into anything, which often gets cut anyways for stage presentations.

Maybe vanilla wow but thats a big maybe

No, just that movies as a medium mainly focus on emotions in a less abstract way than music. That's not a bad thing to say.

>"it hasn’t aged well"
No wonder people keep eating capeshit as long as they feel new.

Attached: 16scene1700.jpg (700x612, 342K)

The conception that ‘emotions’ are ‘opposed’ to ‘intellect’ is myer Briggs personality test middle school midwit retardation. Go fervently study pragmatism with the Chinese if that’s the scope of your ‘intellect’, you’re already a bug

>As someone who’s been in 2 Shakespeare plays
>t. grade schooler

In that it reads worse than Oedipus Rex written 2 thousand years before it
u funny

>meet up with old friend and he’s telling me he’s going to a really good school and studying film and theater and philosophy
>feel like a loser
>ask him his favorite movie
>he says Deadpool

Attached: FBCDDCC1-035E-46C4-B9E4-FC85332403B7.png (241x209, 10K)

>He just rambles on for pages without it playing into anything, which often gets cut anyways for stage presentations.
>"we need more swordfights and less puns or poetry to keep our public entertained"
Also
>acting in schoolplays"
or worse
>being a proffesional theatre actor
lol

>studying film and theater and philosophy

Attached: 1518660848783.png (500x333, 301K)

see
Shakespeare wasn’t high art when it was made, it’s not now. Also
>fetishizes Will
>looks down on everyone who performs his work
the mind of a Shakespeare fan, folks

Yeah, except for the technical knowledge they are pretty much poisoning your mind.

Cinema is a developing art-form. Vidya will never be more than great entertainment, and that's fine.

American film-making is done mostly by Italians and other Euros funny enough.

Half right. Interactivity takes away the artistry completely from a game mostly because to understand the human condition you have to assume a fixed, non-controllable perspective of a society in the artists present time.
The more interactivity a video-game has the better it is, that's the characteristic that sets it apart from other forms of entertainment.

Genre doesn't really exist in art, only entertainment. Doubtful that you can come up with more ideas for a vidya than for entertainment movies, since they are in their conception harder (expensive/limited by tech) to make.

American cinema you mean. Chinese cinema is developing now, Europe has been on a high the last couple years.

Interesting ideas, some wrong.
It doesn't matter if an art-form has others imbued in it, it's actually detracting in most cases. The visual element and time are what sets it apart, all that matters. The rest is accessory and not art in itself.
Films isn't the highest form of art, but it's the most human. Ask yourself how you would represent the subjective/spiritual part of human nature (Literature and music are better suited).

Efficiency, perspective and potential are indeed smart ways to approach a discussion of film.

Comparing with the best might be an exaggeration but you're right. Tark did things no one came close to. Keep in mind though that cinema is still in tis infancy, still has flaws/limits.

You wrote it like a troll but you're not wrong. The objective part of art has been severely neglected. Unlike what the true masters did.

Actually cinema is what´s known as a cultural industry, which basically means it´s both or rather it should be both.

Cinema is the art of the 20th century while video games are the art of the 21th. Video games do represent the potential of the core element that defines this era: interactivity and as cinema it takes elements of all previous arts.
Right now there is some sort of symbiosis between cinema and video games. Games have become focused on telling "cinematographic stories" while cinema has become dependant on the spectacularity of visual digital effects.

I think he meant capeshit and current Hollywood (which is full of remakes, sequels and whatnot). Hollywood right now is at a point where they could do anything but their way of making movies have become so expensive that they play it in the most conservative way possible. While that makes money i don´t think we will see the return of authorism to the big screen. The only reason why author cinema became a thing in America (outside of the B circuits) was because eventually the industrial aproach drives people away. These days several old school authors have moved their productions elsewhere.

That said, it is true that different countries have very different interpretations of the role of cinema. America, China and India are the only countries that have a REAL industrial system where movies are made by private investors and contracts are thought as 3 movie deals and whatnot. Rusia and latin america see it more as a political tool so even comercial productions need to have some social value akin to the values the estate wants to transmit. European countries on the other hand still care about the authors. Sadly the country of production does have some degree of influence on which kind of movies are made because movies are expensive. (though that´s assuming one care for the regular circuits. If one is more on the B class and festivals that´s far less important)

People that do theater nowadays are either pretentious students or starved and depressing people. I know you belong to the former because young generations always think that Shakespeare (or any other classic) importance has ended. Perhaps when you grow up you'll start to appreciate it as much as you are now liking Beckett, Sarah Kane and such.

I love drama and try to watch as much as I can but being a theatre actor is laughable.

>film studying basically consists of watching old movies while drinking whiskey and cokes and smoking weed and posting essays on film theory anonymously
>Andrew Yang gets elected
>YangBux come in, pool YangBux from friends and family to fund my vision
>hire brainwashed cinematographer to do all the tedious technical shit
>make millions
Damn it feels good to be gangsta

Attached: A930CC13-77A7-49FF-A13D-272F72F20F4E.jpg (369x212, 19K)

>chinese cinema is developing now, Europe has been on a high the last couple years.
You forgot India. LOL.

Attached: 1528858950942.gif (205x221, 2.4M)

>or any other classic
>implying I ever said I was a professional actor
either reading comprehension or you need a new glasses old man.

>Andrew Yang gets elected
Who?

>dude weed lmao

I know you were doing highschool drama. How else would you spout so much immature opinions?

...is it really that hard to jut accept I did college? Do you think these posts are clever or entertaining or enlightening in some way?

>amateur opinion
>Do you think these posts are clever or entertaining or enlightening in some way?
Of course not, you have proven yourself a dilettante already.

As a form of entertainment cinema is even below of all others when they try to adapt stuff. How many times you hear stuff like
>the book was better
Or
>holy shit the game is better
Even
>they fucked up the comics
Specially live action. Even cartoon longs adapt other media better.
I mean, c'mon. Do your own stuff be it entertainment or art or both. At this point cinema is nothing but a badly written summary about a subject students present in class

>holy shit the game is better
Never heard that ever.

The game based off the Double Dragon movie was pretty good since it was made by the King of Fighters guys

Attached: doubledr.png (304x224, 19K)

kill yourself you pathetic manchild

I can´t decide if you guys are ignorant or just dumb.

Cinema didn´t start out as a circus spectacle, the inventions, the kintoscope and the cinematograph (the devices) appeared first as curiosities in circus and fairs yes, but that just refers to the technical mechanism that produced the illusion of movement. That alone is not cinema. At that time moving pictures could have evolved to become a number of things... it took years of experimentation to create a language and an espectacle capable to appeal to the masses as anything other than a curiosity.

This is bait but I unironically agree with you/
Videogames have far more potential to be art than Cinema.

>Videogames have far more potential to be art than Cinema.

What does you mean by "potential"? How do you scale "potentiality" in art? What makes it potentially more artistic? What is meant by artistic?

Doom, Mario, street fighter, king of fighters
Why even bother creating a story for shit that barely has any plot to begin with. It would make sense to take a game that focuses on story to a movie but it's really pointless when you remove the gameplay element. You could just use the game setting as the background but then it's just fan service cashing on brand recognition.
The other way around also sucks. Turning Wayne's world or home alone into games, give me a break

What do*

Yes obviously dumb fucks who try to make movies out of kiddie video games are retarded.

The Max Payne movie was also terrible but Max Payne is a one in a million game. Most video games are made for childeren, the majority of ‘gamers’ are playing phone games

Based

Most movies are made for children desu.

Even serious art can be entartaining

As of the last couple years, this is true. Video games continue to evlove as an artistic platform, while cinema has declined.

This thread is so fucking shit. All of you should die.

Best post so far.

>The fact that videogames have more "genres

i don`t think so bucko

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_genre